A. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Joseph Carino, Thomas Deming, Robert Dickinson, Carol Fletterick, Ed Havens, Jr., William Vees
Members Absent: Frank Ferrero
Alternates Present: Richard Aries
Richard Siedman sat in for Frank Ferrero until 8:10 p.m.
Staff Present: C. Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Ether A. Diaz, Recording Secretary
Others: Anthony Lord, Town Attorney
Chairman Joseph Carino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following actions were taken during the November 3, 2010 Regular Meeting of the W.P.C.A.
Mr. Richard Siedman will be sitting in for Mr. Frank Ferrero. Mr. Richard Siedman had to leave the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
B. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
1. September 7, 2010, Regular Meeting
Motion was made to approve the minutes as presented of the September 7, 2010 Regular Meeting.
Motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Richard Siedman
The motion carried unanimously
2. October 5, 2010, Regular Meeting
Motion was made to approve the minutes as presented of the October 5, 2010 Regular Meeting.
Motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. William Vees
The motion carried unanimously
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Commercial Condominium User Charge (Discussion with Town Attorney)
Attorney Andrew Lord was present this evening on behalf of the Town Attorneys Office to answer questions on this subject matter.
Chairman Joseph Carino explained that an issue was raised sometime ago by one of the Alternates concerning the way the commercial condominiums were being charged for sewer use. He explained that the basis of billing commercial condominiums was according to flow. In a previous meeting with the Authority, the Town Attorney has indicated that the current billing process was consistent with the State Statutes and the WPCA Rules and Regulations. Chairman Carino explained that it is very important to understand that all of the residential units are used 24 hours a day/7 days a week vs. the commercial condominiums are 8 hours a day/ 5 days a week. He also explained that it is important to take into consideration whether they are residential or commercial condominiums, some of them are controlled by the
association. So the question whether there is an inconsistency in the method of billing that warrants changing the current billing procedure.
Chairman Carino presented the following question to the Town Attorney for consideration: 1) the Authority has granted approvals to residential and commercial condominiums under the current billing regulation; what would happen if the Authority changes the rule now? Will the Authority be responsible to inform the owner of the residential or commercial condominiums that the rules have changed and therefore the user will have to comply with the new set of rules? Chairman Carino explained that when he reviewed the data presented by Mr. Fred Shaw last March 2010, for the residential condos and regular residential buildings, every owner pays an equal flat fee amount because they fall below the 93,000 gallons which is the basis unit charge, which at the time was $340 per 93,000 gallons.
Chairman Carino asked the Authority to keep in mind that if the billing practices change, it has to change for the whole Town; the Town needs to be viewed in its entirety. This is because there are a lot of minor and major home occupations in Town. Also, there are in-law apartments where the property owner gets a single bill. So, between minor and major home occupations, in law apartments, the Authority has to consider if they are going to be considered for multiple payments as well. This change of rules has to apply to everyone, not just a single individual commercial condominium. At this time, Chairman Carino gave the opportunity to the members of the Authority to present their comments and questions.
Mr. Robert Dickinson provided a copy with his proposed options for sewer user charges for residential homes or condominiums (see Exhibit A). He explained that Option one will be a $50 per year base charge for being hook up; after that a plus charge base on water usage per Water company records. Option two will be a $50 per year base charge for being hooked up plus a charge based on water usage per customer water bill receipts furnished by home owner; and Option three will be only for owners of 65 and over. This is a $50 per year base charge for being hooked up; plus a charge based on water usage per customer water bill. For those homes that are on wells, a user charge will be based on the old average consumption. He explained that he found water meters available for as little as $79.
Mr. Richard Siedman expressed that the problem is in billing commercial condominiums differently from the residential condominiums. He explained that a residential condominium with maybe five (5) units is billed a flat rate of $288 per unit versus the commercial condominium of maybe twenty-five (25) units are billed a flat rate of $288 for the entire complex plus overage of 93,000 gallons. What he proposes is that every commercial condominium with maybe 25 units installs a meter for each unit and be billed a flat rate of $288 per unit plus any overage of 93,000 gallons. He disagree with Chairman Carino that a commercial condominium is an 8 to 5 (8 hours per 5 days); a business that may have a sales man only, they are being charged only $288. He emphasized that the rules states that the Town should
bill per building; however the residential condominiums are getting charged $288 per unit. Therefore, he suggested changing the rules so as to charge each commercial condominiums unit a separate user charge. There is a difference of billing practices for commercial condominiums, because there are some commercial condominiums that are getting billed by the unit plus overage.
Town Attorney asked Mr. Richard Siedman how did he concluded that there is a discrepancy between charging some commercial condominiums by the unit, and some by the building itself? Mr. Siedman answered that there are commercial condominiums that are being billed individually. Mr. Fred Shaw disagreed and explained that the basis for billing purposes is the total flow coming out of the building whether those units are owned individually or leased out by a single owner to private businesses. This total flow figure from an individual building is provided by the water company. There are only two commercial buildings in Town that are served by CT Water Company, and therefore, they have individual meters for each of those individual commercial condominiums units. Mr. Fred Shaw explained that there are
no commercial condominiums being billed by the unit. Mr. Richard Siedman responded that based upon the data provided by Mr. Fred Shaw back in March 2010, 112 Deming Street consists of three units in a single building and are being charged $288 per unit plus overage. Mr. Fred Shaw disagreed; he explained that there were three separate sewer connections permits. If in fact they are within the same building we were unaware of this, and the correction will be made. This will be further reviewed in the field to determine the circumstances of the connection.
Attorney Andrew Lord asked Mr. Richard Siedman if the problem being discussed is revenue. Mr. Siedman explained that the Town is missing revenue, probably $25,000. So Attorney Lord asked Mr. Siedman if the concept is to get more revenue based on fairness to the rest of the Town of South Windsor. In another words, Attorney Lord said, that the concept is “that some people are getting a free ride, relative to residential and commercial businesses”. Mr. Siedman said that is correct, he believe that the current billing practices have to change; the Town needs to bill the businesses the same as residential condominiums, or change the residential condominiums per building, because the rules say to bill per building, not by the unit; this will not require any major improvements or new plumbing.
In response to Chairman Carino’s statements concerning the in-law apartments, Mr. Thomas Deming explained he considers the in-law apartment’s example irrelevant to the discussion of this subject. He maintained that there is a difference whether it is a household of eight people or a household of four people. He also explained that the sewer fees decreased from $340 to $288 and now the people that are on septic system are also going to be paying for the upgrade of the treatment plant. Therefore, he believes that if someone has a commercial condominium, that person should be paying the same sewer fee as the residential condominium owner.
Ms. Carol Fletterick expressed that there is a big discrepancy in the way of billing between residential and commercial condominiums that needs to be addressed. The rules should be changed so as to bill by unit, not by building.
Mr. Ed Havens, Jr. first asked Mr. Fred Shaw if there is a big difference in revenue between the system as mentioned by Mr. Richard Siedman. Mr. Fred Shaw answered that certainly there would be a big difference in revenue. The difference is when trying to be equitable to all users under equable consideration towards the varying conditions. In the case of residential condominiums, there is only one meter for the entire association made up of multiple buildings. There is no other basis other than a single meter for the entire complex. Charging those individual condos per residential unit the Town will receive more revenue. However, changing the billing system so as to bill residential condominium associations based upon a single meter reading will result in a significant reduction of
revenue over what is currently billed. On the other hand, there would be a gain of $25,000 for the equal distribution fee in the case of commercial condominiums, but there would also be a net decrease of total revenue of over $301,000 as a result of billing residential condos by flow. This conclusion is based upon the analysis that was done in March 2010, using the $340 user fee rate in effect at that time. Mr. Fred Shaw also explained that, unlike in the past, there are now more residential units connected to city water. However, there is a cost for basing all residential user fees on flow. The information that is provided by the water company is often base upon an estimate, not upon actual flow meters. The water utility often makes mistakes. In order to manage the data received from the water utilities, an increase in full-time staff would be required which in turn would significantly increase administrative costs.
Mr. Ed Havens, Jr. stated that there is never going to be a perfect system. He does not know how the Authority will enforce any back track changes. From his perspective, he explained, the Authority should leave what is precedence alone, and anything further should be incorporated into some new regulations that every building, every residence, every unit will have a meter and be charged individually.
Mr. William Vees stated that there will never be a perfect system; however, he is concerned about the commercial condominiums not paying a fair share; but he believes that the Town does need new businesses in the community, and by maybe charging the commercial businesses more, it will discourage people to come to this Town.
Mr. Richard Aries explained that there is a distinction about all the equitable considerations that the change of rules may affect and the legal aspects of these changes. This is an opportunity to see all of the legal aspects that could be in effect, should the Authority decides to change the rules. Also, Mr. Aries asked there is some problem with regards to people not been treated equally today and in the future. Mr. Aries asked Attorney Lord if the WPCA has the authority to change the rules and charge commercial condominiums the annual flat fee per unit. Attorney Lord answered that he understand that the WPCA was formed by a special act, and he is aware of the disagreement as to whether or not WPCA has the authority to set its own fees, or the Town Council has the authority to set the user fees. However, the way the statutes are set up, this Authority is supposed to be independent from the municipal government; WPCA have a broad statutory authority to establish whatever
reasonable fee is necessary. Mr. Aries explained that notice is given following a procedure, prior to the adoption of any rule. So he asked Attorney Lord if he sees any legal problems for the Authority advising the property owners of the commercial condominiums that the Authority is considering a new rule that would increase their user fees, and every unit would be charged the flat rate of $288 per unit. Attorney Lord answered that he does not see that as a problem because of the way that the State Statutes are set up. The Authority proposes what the user fees are going to be, the rates are published and posted in the Town Clerks Office, a public hearing is held, public comments are received and a decision is made as the Authority adopts new user fees rates. People have the right to appeal within a period of time to the superior court. So, from a statutory perspective, the Authority has a lot of power and flexibility to change their
rules.
Attorney Lord asked if the residential homes are being billed by meter reading. Mr. Fred Shaw answered no, he explained that years ago most of the users were not on city water. The Town received data from MDC, a sampling of 1700 residential units in Town, and used a geometric mean to determine the average residential water consumption. This is how the 93,000 gallons was determined and it was applied as a flat fee against all residential units in Town. Chairman Carino explained that he thinks that maybe the 93,000 gallon is too high. In looking at the data provided by Mr. Fred Shaw, the consumption figures are less than 93,000 gallons. He explained that the flow figures ranges between 31,000 up to 63,000. So, Chairman Carino suggested reducing this figure, keeping in mind that sewer
usage is a consumption situation. Not everybody pays the same regardless how much they discharge into the sewer system. Mr. Richard Siedman answered that he is not in favor of charging the residential condos by the flow. However, he wants to change the billing process so as to bill the commercial condominiums individually plus overage. Mr. Robert Dickinson said that everyone should be billed a base charge plus flow.
Mr. Richard Aries stated that he believes that the residential billing charge should not be altered. However, there is more work to be done as far as equity consideration based on the type of business, where there is a light industrial manufacturing/or heavy manufacturing. Mr. Aries asked if is possible to complete a survey of those specific commercial units in question, so as to make a determination of which units will be best subject to any new rule regarding sewer fees based on the flow measurement. Mr. Fred Shaw answered that it can be done only for those that are served by the CT water company. However, the data that was provided back in March 2010 identifies all the commercial condominiums overall flow.
Ms. Carol Fletterick asked Attorney Lord to give his input as to how should they handled the same situation in the Town he is a Chairman of the WPCA. Attorney Lord answered that in East Haddam what the WPCA did was to allocate an equivalent dwelling unit (edu) which is about 250 gallon per day to each residence unit. For other properties that weren’t residential, their flow is based on property health code assessments. The Department of Health has guidelines for how much usage every business has; for example a restaurant has guidelines based on the number of tables and the number of turnovers and things like that. Their town allocated to the businesses the number of edu’s so that they would equivalent to a single family home. So it could be 5 or 10 edu’s, so they will pay 5 or
10 times what the normal residential rate will be. For the large users, there were metering provisions where by they could put in their own meter and they can pay the difference.
Ms. Carol Fletterick also asked if this is something that maybe the Town of South Windsor can apply. Attorney Lord answered that is never going to be fair unless it is done by the flow. This issue involving the commercial condos is a fairly small problem; in this case there is a small number of properties that the Authority is considering. This does not means that the Town needs to completely change the whole system, unless there is a huge economic problem. Mr. Fred Shaw responded that in calculating the 250 gallons per day, per residential unit that the Town of East Haddam applies, it comes out to be 91,250 gallons per year which is roughly what the Town of South Windsor is currently doing.
Chairman Carino asked the Town Attorney in the case where the condominiums that are operated by an association, whether the association charges the individual tenants. These associations are aware that the WPCA rules say to charge by the flow. If the Authority changes the rules and send everyone a bill for the flat rate of $288; how can it be legally done? Attorney Lord answered that it can be done, because the Authority will be raising the rate to be consistent with the other commercial businesses billing practice.
Mr. Thomas Deming asked how the basis of 93,000 gallons can be reduced. Mr. Fred Shaw answered by a reassessing of the normal distribution of residential flow rates. This can be done by asking the water companies to provide data concerning how flows are distributed among the residential users. A random sampling of data collected and analyzed to determine a normal distribution of flow and determine what the standard deviations are for the normal curve. By doing this, the Authority will have a better idea about how to adjust the 93,000 gallons and may find that two flat rates may provide an equitable resolution of this matter.
Mr. Richard Aries expressed that he favors the idea of leaving things the way they are because of all of the problems that can result because of the complexity in trying the equable to everyone. Chairman Carino asked everyone to think about everything that was discussed so as to decide whether or not the current policy should be changed.
2. 888 Main Street (Approval to temporarily remove from residential billing list)
For the record the property is 880 Main Street, not 888 Main Street. Mr. Fred Shaw reported that he received a call from the property owner of 880 Main Street requesting for some relief from the user fees for this year because the house is being restored and is unoccupied; none of the plumbing is in place. The sewer stills runs to the house, however, everything has been capped. Mr. Richard Aries asked if there is a way of keeping track when they reconnect again. Mr. Fred Shaw answered that there is a better system in place than in the past. This system is called MUNIS in which Mr. Shaw is provided on a weekly basis with a report listing the building permits and C.O.’s (Certificate of Occupancy) that have been issued. The Building Department is aware of this situation and will keep
Mr. Fred Shaw informed as to when the plumbing is back in place. At that time, this property will be added back onto the sewer billing list.
Motion was made to temporarily remove 880 Main Street from the residential billing list.
The motion was made by Mr. Richard Aries
The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion carried unanimously
3. WPCA FY 2009/2010 Annual Report (Review and Approve)
A copy of the WPCA Annual Report FY 2009/2010 was included with the agenda for review and consideration of the Authority (Exhibit B). There were no changes recommended.
Motion was made to approve the WPCA Annual Report for FY 2009/2010 as presented herein Exhibit B.
Motion was made by Mr. Robert Dickinson
The motion was seconded by Mr. Richard Aries
The motion carried unanimously
4. WPCA Calendar for 2011 (Review and Approve)
With the Agenda, a copy of the WPCA 2011 Meeting Calendar was included for review and approval (see Exhibit C). Chairman Carino explained that there is a floating meeting date for July which will get scheduled in the June meeting. There is no meeting normally scheduled in August, and in November the meeting date will not be affected this year due to the elections, therefore, the meeting will be on the first Tuesday of the month.
Motion was made to approve the WPCA Calendar for 2011 as presented in the Memorandum from Mr. Fred Shaw dated October 28, 2010 attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The motion was made by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Richard Aries
The motion carried unanimously
D. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Mr. Fred Shaw reported the referendum passed for the pump stations upgrade. He will be meeting next week with the engineers regarding the contracts amendments for the construction phase, and will be starting the discussion on the updating of the design. It is anticipated that the project will go out to bid in January 2011 and awarded the contract in February 2011. It is anticipated that the construction phase will begin in March or April 2011.
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
F. BILLS, CHANGE ORDERS, DISBURSEMENTS
None
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Proposed Reserve Fund Policy (Discussion)
Mr. Richard Aries thanked Mr. Fred Shaw for taking his time in preparing and providing all the material regarding this proposed policy. Mr. Aries explained that he is very interested in what is being proposed. He recommended to the Authority to review the provided material for further discussion and consideration. He still has some questions that he would like for Mr. Fred Shaw to answer; therefore, he recommended that this Item be tabled to the next meeting.
Mr. Fred Shaw reported that he was prepared as requested to distribute projections of the Reserve Fund Policy on the user rates with and without the plant debt service. This information will be available at the next meeting. He explained that the numbers that are in the proposed draft policy were just for discussion purposes. Mr. Deming asked how much money is in the reserve fund. Mr. Fred Shaw answered that there is about $2.6 million and of that everything except $900,000 is reserved. Mr. Richard Aries asked if the money in the reserve fund is dependent upon the Town Council commitment to pay the plant debt service through property taxes. Mr. Fred Shaw answered that there was a current council member that has raised an issue about meeting such a commitment because this decision should
be left for future council to decide. Chairman Carino suggested writing a letter to Mr. Keith Yagaloff, WPCA Liaison asking him to attend the WPCA meeting to discuss the issue as to who will be responsible for the debt service of the treatment plant.
Motion was made to table this Item to the next scheduled WPCA meeting for further discussion.
The motion was made by Mr. Richard Aries
The motion was seconded by Mr. William Vees
The motion carried unanimously
H. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING CLAIMS
None
I. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
The motion was made by Mr. Thomas Deming
The motion was seconded by Mr. Ed Havens, Jr.
The motion carried unanimously
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________ Originally Posted: November 9, 2010
Ether A. Diaz Approved Date: December 7, 2010
Recording Secretary
| 
